The announcement [by Jeffords] paved the way for a match-up between Rep. Bernie Sanders, the independent whose politics are to the left of most Democrats, and Gov. Jim Douglas (R), a centrist who easily won his second term last year by more than 20 percentage points.

A Vermont source with close ties to the state Republican Party said that President Bush had called Douglas yesterday asking him to run. While Douglas has yet to announce his plans, the source said that Douglas “is definitely going to run for the Senate seat.”

Jason Gibbs, a spokesman for the governor, said Douglas is focused on the state legislative session and has not made any decisions about the Senate race. The governor was attending a policy forum yesterday in Columbus, Ohio, organized by the Republican Governors Association, Gibbs said.

The governor was portrayed as supportive of abortion rights and more middle-of-the-road than the president when it came to the environment. Still, he served as Bush’s campaign chairman in Vermont in 2004.

As for Sanders, he left little doubt that his long-held plan to run for the Senate was unwavering. “I know the discussion will turn quickly to the November 2006 election,” the congressman said in a statement. “I have been clear about my intentions, which have not changed, but today is not the time to talk about politics or elections.”

Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, said his party members expected Sanders to run for the Senate. If that happens, Frank said, senior members of the party would discourage other Democrats from challenging Sanders, avoiding a three-way race that could tip the election to a Republican in the liberal-leaning state.

1-Governors of hte wrong party, while they may be popular and can win their gubernatorial races easily, don't always end up as great Senate candidates. See William Weld and Tony Knowles.2-Douglas may be popular, but the main reason he won so easily last time is he had a very weak opponent and the Democrats didn't bother to try to beat him. Hardly proof he can win a tough competitive race.3-Vermont has two year terms for governor. Why would Douglas abandon the governorship for a long shot Senate race?4-Sanders got almost 10 points better than Douglas did last time. It's no contest as to who is more popular.

Here's my question: how is it determined, and who determines, whether or not there is a Democratic primary at all?

And if there isn't, what is Vermont's process for getting on the ballot?

This is another race, by the way, on what amounts to Democrat turf. Douglas is competitive, without question, and is rather moderate but nonetheless a Republican. Sanders, in reality, is leftist even by Vermont standards, primarily on economic issues.

What this amounts to is at least another headache for the Dems, who now are trusting that an independent Socialist can win a seat to limit further damage to the Senate Democrats.

Sanders is a defacto Democrat. The national Democrats will simply treat him as no different from Casey or the candidate here. While there might be a Democratic primary if anyone does run, like in the past that candidate will be a total joke who will get no support from the national party and will be no more of a factor than the Libertarian in most races.

Douglas is becoming even more overrated than Steele. Considering that as pointed out above:

1-Sanders did almost 10 points better than him last time, and there's no question as to who's more popular2-He is still in a weaker position than both Tony Knowles and William Weld. And those two had nothing to lose by running. He does.

Um no. Weld was running against an incumbent; this is an open seat in a less machine-oriented state.

Sanders is leftist but he quite simply is not a Democrat. Whether that winds up mattering is unclear, but certainly whatever organizational benefits come with being part of the DNC will not be there for him.

There actually is question who is more popular heads-up. Clavelle wasn't THAT bad and he was running a serious campaign; Sanders did not face real opposition. Also note that a Democrat in his House race fetched 7%, so I would expect anywhere from 5-8% to be ciphered in the Senate race.

If I had to bet even odds, I would take Douglas. If anyone is overrated here it's Sanders.

What an odd race. One on side is the moderate Republican governor in a strongly Democratic state who is having his arm twisted by his party to give up his position and take a gamble on a senate bid. On the other side is a left-wing lunatic who mutually doesn't sit well in the Democratic party, but would probably be endorsed by them anyway. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Vermont is weird.

Um no. Weld was running against an incumbent; this is an open seat in a less machine-oriented state.

Sanders is leftist but he quite simply is not a Democrat. Whether that winds up mattering is unclear, but certainly whatever organizational benefits come with being part of the DNC will not be there for him.

There actually is question who is more popular heads-up. Clavelle wasn't THAT bad and he was running a serious campaign; Sanders did not face real opposition. Also note that a Democrat in his House race fetched 7%, so I would expect anywhere from 5-8% to be ciphered in the Senate race.

If I had to bet even odds, I would take Douglas. If anyone is overrated here it's Sanders.

Sanders is basically the incumbent as he already holds a statewide Congressional position. And yes Douglas does too, but it's pretty obvious by looking at many races in the past to see that legislative and gubernatorial races are completely different.

If Sanders was so overrated and vulnerable, you would've expected the Republicans to try to beat him in the House, or at least put up a serious campaign against him.

It's true that Sanders won't have the organization strength of the DNC behind him like an actual Democrat would. But this isn't going to matter. It probably hurt him when he was first running for Congress, but at this point, already having run statewide eight times in a tiny state, Sanders has all the organization he needs. Every voter in Vermont knows Bernie and probably knows whether or not they will vote for him. Next to him, Douglas is an unknown lightweight.

Sanders is not universally liked, and Douglas would give him a close race. But this race will be about Sanders, and it is his to lose.

1-Governors of hte wrong party, while they may be popular and can win their gubernatorial races easily, don't always end up as great Senate candidates. See William Weld and Tony Knowles.2-Douglas may be popular, but the main reason he won so easily last time is he had a very weak opponent and the Democrats didn't bother to try to beat him. Hardly proof he can win a tough competitive race.3-Vermont has two year terms for governor. Why would Douglas abandon the governorship for a long shot Senate race?4-Sanders got almost 10 points better than Douglas did last time. It's no contest as to who is more popular.

1. maybe2. the reason the dems ran a weak opponent is because he wwas so popular. what is your point?3. because he wants a promotion and he is the only republican who has a shot?4. unfair comparison.

ill agree that the race leans in sanders direction. but the man is a radical. im sure douglas will come across more mature and ready to lead. douglas has a decent shot of winning.

Sanders has held his seat for six successive terms, defeating both Democratic and Republican candidates, and becoming the longest-serving independent member of the House. In 1992 he took 57.8% of the vote to his Republican and Democratic opponents' respective 30.9% and 7.9% of the vote. In 1994, the year of a resounding mid-term Republican victory, he took 49.9% to his Republican opponent's 46.6%. In 1996 he took 55.2% to his Republican and Democratic opponents' respective 32.6% and 9.3%. In 1998, he trounced his Republican opponent 63.4% to 32.9%. In 2000, he took 69.2% to his Republican and Democratic opponents' respective 18.3% and 5.3%. In 2002, he took 64.3% to his Republican opponent's 32.3%. Most recently, in 2004, Sanders took 68.8% to his Republican opponent's 24.6% and Democratic opponent's 7.3%.

Do you really think a state that just a couple weeks ago overwhelmingly passed a referendum urging President Bush to withdraw all U.S. Troops from Iraq is going to send a Republican to the United States Senate? (If so, he better speak out against the war and speak out strong.)

On top of that Sanders is by far the most popular poltician in the state. His 58% approval rating is tops. In Nov. 2004 Sanders won his Congressional race with 68% of the vote. Sanders has never received less than 55% of the vote.

Saying that this will definately be a close race is assuming that Douglas will run, which I doubt he will. He can either take a Senate race he has at best slightly under 50/50 chances in, or a safe governor's seat. Which to take?

If Sanders runs, I don't see how it would be any different than any of his House races which he wins no problem. It will cost the same amount of money and all the other factors also apply. And pretending that this seat is just as "open" as Maryland and that Sanders isn't to at least a slight degree a de facto incumbent is pretty naive. There is really no difference between Sanders House seat and this Senate seat.

I think moderate Vermont voters are going to think twice about sending Sanders to the Senate. Even in states with more Senators than Reps I think voters are cognizant of the different demands of the respective bodies (Vermont having a very educated voter pool).

With Douglas, they get a Senator who would be in the majority and quite possibly get good committee assignments and plenty of pork for Vermont. In Sanders, they get an independent who has to be protected by a minority party-- which is unlikely to place his needs above their own members.

That is why Douglas can win (and why Chafee is still a Republican and why he's going to win in RI). Sanders is not Senate material and Douglas is, plain and simple... leftists are in la-la land with this one.

I think moderate Vermont voters are going to think twice about sending Sanders to the Senate. Even in states with more Senators than Reps I think voters are cognizant of the different demands of the respective bodies (Vermont having a very educated voter pool).

With Douglas, they get a Senator who would be in the majority and quite possibly get good committee assignments and plenty of pork for Vermont. In Sanders, they get an independent who has to be protected by a minority party-- which is unlikely to place his needs above their own members.

That is why Douglas can win (and why Chafee is still a Republican and why he's going to win in RI). Sanders is not Senate material and Douglas is, plain and simple... leftists are in la-la land with this one.

What leftists? I find it hard to believe that Vermonters are going to make such a dispassionate analyisis in favour of Douglas with Theocracy staring them in the face.

Douglas isn't a Southern Christian Republican. Remember, all politics are local. It would be a tough race, I would see it as a lean-independent, but Sanders is hardly a shoo-in. A lot can happen.

One question for anybody more familiar with Vermont. Do the Democrats have anybody on the ballot against Sanders? I know they don't fund anybody which is everything, but I was just curious if some no-name Democrat ends up on the ballot against him.

One question for anybody more familiar with Vermont. Do the Democrats have anybody on the ballot against Sanders? I know they don't fund anybody which is everything, but I was just curious if some no-name Democrat ends up on the ballot against him.

Sometimes there is a Democrat running on the ballot against Sanders, sometimes there is not. Someone ran in 2004 and got 7% of the vote against him, but no one ran in 2002 AFAIK. I would guess that the Democrats would strongly urge no one to run if its Sanders v. Douglas for Senate.